IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v81y2019icp453-462.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Socio-economic valuation of abandonment and intensification of Alpine agroecosystems and associated ecosystem services

Author

Listed:
  • Faccioni, G.
  • Sturaro, E.
  • Ramanzin, M.
  • Bernués, A.

Abstract

The aim of the study was to analyse, using the ecosystem services framework, the sociocultural and economic value of a number of positive functions of Alpine agroecosystems (in north-eastern Italy) in a context of simultaneous processes of intensification and abandonment. Firstly, we used qualitative methods (interviews with farmers and other local stakeholders) to explore the relationships between the dairy livestock systems and the environment. Secondly, we used a choice model to rank and value the most important functions of the current agroecosystems (dairy livestock systems and permanent crops) according to the views of local (residents of the study area) and general (residents of the six neighbouring provinces) populations in three policy scenarios. We found that all the local stakeholders had a positive opinion of the outcomes of the mountain dairy livestock system. Within the current agroecosystems, regulation services (water quality) were found to be the most valuable for the well-being of society. Moreover, people were willing to compromise on production (quality products) rather than cut back on environmental services in a hypothetical sustainable development scenario. The current trend of intensification of permanent crops and dairy production, with the consequent abandonment of summer pastures, was rejected by respondents. The Total Economic Value of a set of four ecosystem services of an Alpine agroecosystem was €159.30 per person per year, which clearly exceeded current expenditure on agroenvironmental programmes.

Suggested Citation

  • Faccioni, G. & Sturaro, E. & Ramanzin, M. & Bernués, A., 2019. "Socio-economic valuation of abandonment and intensification of Alpine agroecosystems and associated ecosystem services," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 453-462.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:81:y:2019:i:c:p:453-462
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.10.044
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837718300310
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.10.044?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alan Randall, 2002. "Valuing the outputs of multifunctional agriculture," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 29(3), pages 289-307, July.
    2. Swinton, Scott M. & Lupi, Frank & Robertson, G. Philip & Hamilton, Stephen K., 2007. "Ecosystem services and agriculture: Cultivating agricultural ecosystems for diverse benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 245-252, December.
    3. Hein, Lars & van Koppen, C.S.A. (Kris) & van Ierland, Ekko C. & Leidekker, Jakob, 2016. "Temporal scales, ecosystem dynamics, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystems services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PA), pages 109-119.
    4. Chan, Kai M.A. & Satterfield, Terre & Goldstein, Joshua, 2012. "Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 8-18.
    5. Schmidt, Katja & Walz, Ariane & Martín-López, Berta & Sachse, René, 2017. "Testing socio-cultural valuation methods of ecosystem services to explain land use preferences," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 270-288.
    6. Schirpke, Uta & Kohler, Marina & Leitinger, Georg & Fontana, Veronika & Tasser, Erich & Tappeiner, Ulrike, 2017. "Future impacts of changing land-use and climate on ecosystem services of mountain grassland and their resilience," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 79-94.
    7. Gordon, Line J. & Finlayson, C. Max & Falkenmark, Malin, 2010. "Managing water in agriculture for food production and other ecosystem services," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 97(4), pages 512-519, April.
    8. Dale, Virginia H. & Polasky, Stephen, 2007. "Measures of the effects of agricultural practices on ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 286-296, December.
    9. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    10. Hansjürgens, Bernd & Schröter-Schlaack, Christoph & Berghöfer, Augustin & Lienhoop, Nele, 2017. "Justifying social values of nature: Economic reasoning beyond self-interested preferences," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 9-17.
    11. Adrienne Grêt-Regamey & Bettina Weibel & Kenneth J Bagstad & Marika Ferrari & Davide Geneletti & Hermann Klug & Uta Schirpke & Ulrike Tappeiner, 2014. "On the Effects of Scale for Ecosystem Services Mapping," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-26, December.
    12. Zhang, Wei & Ricketts, Taylor H. & Kremen, Claire & Carney, Karen & Swinton, Scott M., 2007. "Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 253-260, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Morgese, S. & Casale, F. & Movedi, E. & Confalonieri, R. & Bocchiola, D., 2024. "Modelling the effects of potential climate change on the dynamics of multi-species mountain pastures: A case study in Gran Paradiso National Park, Italy," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 217(C).
    2. Gaglio, Mattias & Aschonitis, Vassilis & Castaldelli, Giuseppe & Fano, Elisa Anna, 2020. "Land use intensification rather than land cover change affects regulating services in the mountainous Adige river basin (Italy)," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    3. Hengfei Song & Liangjie Xin & Xiubin Li & Xue Wang & Yufeng He & Wen Song, 2022. "Can Livestock Raising Alleviate Farmland Abandonment?—Evidence from China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-18, July.
    4. Carine Pachoud, 2021. "Territorialization of Public Action and Mountain Pastoral Areas—Case Study of the Territorial Pastoral Plans of the Rhône-Alpes Region, France," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-14, July.
    5. Muñoz-Ulecia, E. & Bernués, A. & Casasús, I. & Olaizola, A.M. & Lobón, S. & Martín-Collado, D., 2021. "Drivers of change in mountain agriculture: A thirty-year analysis of trajectories of evolution of cattle farming systems in the Spanish Pyrenees," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    6. Pappalardo, Gioacchino & West, Grant Howard & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Toscano, Sabrina & Pecorino, Biagio, 2022. "The effect of a UNESCO world heritage site designation on willingness to pay to preserve an agri-environmental good: The case of the dry stone walls in Mt. Etna," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    7. Schmitt, Thomas M. & Martín-López, Berta & Kaim, Andrea & Früh-Müller, Andrea & Koellner, Thomas, 2021. "Ecosystem services from (pre-)Alpine grasslands: Matches and mismatches between citizens’ perceived suitability and farmers’ management considerations," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    8. Makovníková Jarmila & Pálka Boris & Kološta Stanislav & Flaška Filip & Orságová Katarína & Spišiaková Mária, 2020. "Non-Monetary Assessment and Mapping of the Potential of Agroecosystem Services in Rural Slovakia," European Countryside, Sciendo, vol. 12(2), pages 257-276, June.
    9. Raviv, Orna & Tchetchik, Anat & Lotan, Alon & Izhaki, Ido & Zemah Shamir, Shiri, 2021. "Direct and indirect valuation of air-quality regulation service as reflected in the preferences towards distinct types of landscape in a biosphere reserve," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    10. Argenti, G. & Chiesi, M. & Fibbi, L. & Maselli, F., 2022. "Use of remote sensing and bio-geochemical models to estimate the net carbon fluxes of managed mountain grasslands," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 474(C).
    11. Laporta, Lia & Domingos, Tiago & Marta-Pedroso, Cristina, 2021. "It's a keeper: Valuing the carbon storage service of Agroforestry ecosystems in the context of CAP Eco-Schemes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    12. Merida, Vincent Elijiah & Cook, David & Ögmundarson, Ólafur & Davíðsdóttir, Brynhildur, 2022. "Ecosystem services and disservices of meat and dairy production: A systematic literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Smith, Helen F. & Sullivan, Caroline A., 2014. "Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes—Farmers' perceptions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 72-80.
    2. Robert Fish & Michael Winter & Matt Lobley, 2014. "Sustainable intensification and ecosystem services: new directions in agricultural governance," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(1), pages 51-67, March.
    3. Varela, Elsa & Kallas, Zein, 2022. "Extensive Mediterranean agroecosystems and their linked traditional breeds: Societal demand for the conservation of the Majorcan black pig," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    4. Novikova, Anastasija & Rocchi, Lucia & Vitunskienė, Vlada, 2017. "Assessing the benefit of the agroecosystem services: Lithuanian preferences using a latent class approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 277-286.
    5. Fan, Fan & Henriksen, Christian Bugge & Porter, John, 2016. "Valuation of ecosystem services in organic cereal crop production systems with different management practices in relation to organic matter input," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 117-127.
    6. Fengjiao Ma & A. Egrinya Eneji & Jintong Liu, 2014. "Understanding Relationships among Agro-Ecosystem Services Based on Emergy Analysis in Luancheng County, North China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(12), pages 1-20, November.
    7. Chandra, Rommila, 2024. "Environmental effects in the changing mountain farming system – A case study from Uttarakhand," IAAE 2024 Conference, August 2-7, 2024, New Delhi, India 344308, International Association of Agricultural Economists (IAAE).
    8. Stallman, Heidi R., 2011. "Ecosystem services in agriculture: Determining suitability for provision by collective management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 131-139.
    9. Sandhu, Harpinder S. & Crossman, Neville D. & Smith, F. Patrick, 2012. "Ecosystem services and Australian agricultural enterprises," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 19-26.
    10. Shipley, Nathan J. & Johnson, Dana N. & van Riper, Carena J. & Stewart, William P. & Chu, Maria L. & Suski, Cory D. & Stein, Jeffrey A. & Shew, Justin J., 2020. "A deliberative research approach to valuing agro-ecosystem services in a worked landscape," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    11. Bianca Tilliger & Beatriz Rodríguez-Labajos & Jesus Victor Bustamante & Josef Settele, 2015. "Disentangling Values in the Interrelations between Cultural Ecosystem Services and Landscape Conservation—A Case Study of the Ifugao Rice Terraces in the Philippines," Land, MDPI, vol. 4(3), pages 1-26, September.
    12. Dominati, Estelle & Patterson, Murray & Mackay, Alec, 2010. "A framework for classifying and quantifying the natural capital and ecosystem services of soils," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 1858-1868, July.
    13. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    14. Trautman, Dawn & Jeffrey, Scott R. & Unterschultz, James R., 2012. "Beneficial Management Practice (BMP) Adoption -- Direct Farm Cost/Benefit Tradeoffs," Project Report Series 139638, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
    15. Vaz, Ana S. & Kueffer, Christoph & Kull, Christian A. & Richardson, David M. & Vicente, Joana R. & Kühn, Ingolf & Schröter, Matthias & Hauck, Jennifer & Bonn, Aletta & Honrado, João P., 2017. "Integrating ecosystem services and disservices: insights from plant invasions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 94-107.
    16. Jónsson, Jón Örvar G. & Davíðsdóttir, Brynhildur, 2016. "Classification and valuation of soil ecosystem services," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 24-38.
    17. Liu, Wenjing & Wang, Jingsheng & Li, Chao & Chen, Baoxiong & Sun, Yufang, 2019. "Using Bibliometric Analysis to Understand the Recent Progress in Agroecosystem Services Research," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 293-305.
    18. Kragt, Marit E. & Robertson, Michael J., 2014. "Quantifying ecosystem services trade-offs from agricultural practices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 147-157.
    19. Barrena, José & Nahuelhual, Laura & Báez, Andrea & Schiappacasse, Ignacio & Cerda, Claudia, 2014. "Valuing cultural ecosystem services: Agricultural heritage in Chiloé island, southern Chile," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 66-75.
    20. Bauer, Dana Marie & Johnston, Robert J., 2013. "Foreword: The Economics of Rural and Agricultural Ecosystem Services: Purism versus Practicality," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 42(1), pages 1-13, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:81:y:2019:i:c:p:453-462. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.